Frauds and Fools: Media's Trump Lies Exposed

Once again, the self-proclaimed geopolitical “experts” in the media have demonstrated their profound lack of understanding of global affairs, scrambling to push simplistic narratives in response to the extraordinary scenes at the White House on Friday, 28 February 2025.

In the aftermath of the heated confrontation between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, media figures, including Sky News Australia’s Chris Kenny, lined up to smear Trump with baseless accusations, all while exposing their own cluelessness.

Rather than offering informed analysis, Kenny used his platform to label Trump’s conduct “deeply worrying” and demanded unwavering US support for Ukraine, declaring, “The world needs Donald Trump to stand by Ukraine and stand up to Moscow.”

Kenny, like so many other commentators, failed to recognise the actual stakes at play. Instead of investigating the deeper geopolitical tensions or the legitimate concerns raised by the US administration, commentators have lazily defaulted to recycled, binary talking points: Ukraine good, Russia bad, and any leader who dares question this orthodoxy—Trump most of all—must be discredited.

The truth of what unfolded in the Oval Office is far more complex than the headlines suggest. Reports confirm Trump clashed with Zelenskyy over Ukraine’s persistent demands for increased US military aid and the perceived lack of appreciation from Kyiv for Washington’s existing support.

Sources inside the meeting described Trump as furious, accusing Zelenskyy of “disrespecting the US” and warning Ukraine’s aggressive lobbying risked escalating global tensions. J.D. Vance reportedly joined the rebuke, calling out Ukraine’s use of forced conscription and telling Zelenskyy to show greater gratitude towards the American people.

For a media class supposedly dedicated to informing the public, these nuances were conveniently omitted. Instead, the incident was instantly framed as yet another Trumpian meltdown—a threat to democracy and global stability. That’s not analysis; it’s propaganda.

Kenny, in particular, typifies the intellectual laziness now infecting so much of the Australian media. Here is a man who routinely rails against “woke” culture and the erosion of public debate, yet when confronted with the complexities of international power politics, he parrots the same tired lines as his ideological opposites. There’s no deeper insight, no attempt to interrogate the strategic considerations of Trump’s position, no recognition of the shifting global order. Just simplistic, performative outrage.

This isn’t just about bad punditry; it’s a systemic failure of journalism. Far too many commentators are masquerading as geopolitical experts without the knowledge or rigour such a title demands. Their coverage of the Trump-Zelenskyy stoush has been a case study in how modern media distorts reality to fit pre-approved narratives.

No consideration was given to whether Trump’s concerns about prolonging conflict were valid, whether Ukraine’s handling of the war effort has been strategically sound, or whether American voters have the appetite to indefinitely bankroll a foreign war. These are the actual questions serious analysts should be asking. But you won’t hear them on Sky News.

The implications of this media failure are profound. By reducing complex diplomatic incidents to tabloid-level squabbles, not only misinform their audiences but actively undermine public understanding of global affairs. In the case of Ukraine, this is particularly dangerous.

Blind cheerleading of endless military escalation ignores the devastating human cost of protracted conflict and the mounting international calls for negotiation and settlement. T

rump’s scepticism of the war machine—his insistence on putting America’s interests first—is precisely why so many elites, both in Washington and in the media, are so desperate to delegitimise him.

The February 28 clash was never simply about diplomatic protocol. It was about competing visions for global security: one that sees perpetual war as the price of influence and another that questions whether endless intervention serves the national interest.

Trump’s critics, Kenny included, refuse to grapple with that fundamental divide. Easier, instead, to paint Trump as reckless and Zelenskyy as heroic, no matter how much that caricature distorts the truth.

Zelenskyy arrived in Washington expecting a blank cheque. He left humiliated. And rather than interrogate why, media figures like Kenny have been too busy auditioning for applause from establishment gatekeepers to provide their viewers with a proper explanation.

Australians deserve better than this kind of hollow analysis. They deserve journalists who understand geopolitics isn’t a morality play, that national leaders are tasked with navigating competing interests, and that diplomacy often involves difficult, unpopular decisions. Above all, they deserve commentators who are prepared to leave their preconceived narratives at the door and tell the truth.

Until that happens, expect more of the same: commentators pretending to be experts, headlines designed to inflame rather than inform, and a public left none the wiser about the world around them